The Lowdown » mapshttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown
KQED Public Media for Northern CASat, 01 Aug 2015 22:06:29 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2Ireland Now Included in Gay Marriage Atlas of the World [Interactive Map]http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/05/26/interactive-map-where-in-the-world-is-same-sex-marriage-already-legal/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/05/26/interactive-map-where-in-the-world-is-same-sex-marriage-already-legal/#commentsTue, 26 May 2015 19:17:36 +0000http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=17281Talk about a turnaround.

Until 1993, Ireland, a majority Catholic nation, considered homosexuality a criminal offense. But on Saturday (May 23), its residents voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriage, becoming the first nation in the world to do so through the popular vote. Ireland now joins 18 other nations that have legalized gay marriage, with the Netherlands leading the charge in 2001. While gay marriage is allowed in certain states in the U.S., it’s still not legal nationwide.

In the United States, the legality of gay marriage nationwide remains hotly contested.

The Supreme Court in April took up the issue of same-sex marriage once again, hearing two and a half hours of arguments over whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees this right nationwide to same-sex couples.

Although same-sex marriage is now legal in 37 states, that right’s not protected under federal law, and is still prohibited in 13 states (click on the LA Times map image at right for more detail, including a animated chronology).

In a potentially landmark case that could decide one of the biggest civil rights issues of this era , the nine justices are considering two questions:

1. Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment require states to allow same-sex marriages?

2. Does the 14th Amendment require that states that don’t permit same-sex marriages still recognize the marriages of same-sex residents who were married out-of-state?

A ruling from the court is expected in late June, with much anticipation of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision, which will likely tip the balance.

If the U.S. does legalize same-sex marriage, it will follow in the path of these 18 other nation’s that have all incrementally legalized the practice over the last 15 years. The Netherlands was the global pioneer, enacting legislation in 2001.

[Note that in the U.S. and Mexico, same sex marriage is only legal in certain jurisdictions.]

Be it torrential rains or severe droughts, huge wildfires or rising sea-levels, every corner of the United States has been — and will continue to be — impacted by the effects of human-induced climate change.

That’s the scenario presented last week by a team of scientists who described a series of sweeping environmental changes of near biblical proportions.

The government report, known as the National Climate Assessment, notes that many of these changes have resulted from an average temperature increase of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. It warns that U.S. temperatures could increase by more than 10 degrees by the end of this century if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase.

Prepared by a large team of scientists, the White House released the study in an effort to create a greater sense urgency among Americans and build support for new climate change regulation that President Obama plans to introduce in June. An April Gallup poll found one in four Americans is still skeptical about the effects of climate change and thinks the seriousness of the issue has been exaggerated by the news media.

The report also describes the significantly varying impacts of climate change across the country, from torrential rains and coastal flooding in the Northeast, to severe droughts and intensifying wildfires in the West.

“The contents confirm that climate change is not a distant threat,” Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, said in a video summary of the report. “It is affecting the American people already. On the whole, summers are longer and hotter with longer periods of extended heat. Wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue later into the fall. Rain comes down in heavier downpours. People are experiencing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies. And climate disruptions to water resources and agriculture have been increasing.”

So how does California make out in all of this?

Not so hot, it turns out (or actually, really hot). A separate 2013 study by the California Environmental Protection Agency, found far-reaching impacts across the state, including severe water shortages, more frequent wildfires, coastal flooding and extreme heat. The infographic below, found in the report, lists some of these key indicators. Mouse over it and click to zoom in on specific areas.

In the last 30 years, at least 62 mass shootings have happened in 30 states stretching from Hawaii to Massachusetts.

That’s according to reporting by Mother Jones, which produced a comprehensive series examining gun deaths and gun control in America (in which mass shootings are defined as incidents where four or more people are murdered in a public place).

Next week, the U.S. Senate begins debate on a set of gun control proposals that came about largely in response to the horrific mass shootings last December at Sandy Hook. While lawmakers remain fiercely divided on the issue, there remains, at least, a general acknowledgement that mass shootings happen far too frequently in this country, and that action of some kind is needed to prevent future tragedies of such magnitude.

While mass shooting deaths make up only a small percentage of America’s total gun homicides, they’ve occurred with alarming frequency in recent years, an anomaly among other industrialized nations.

In the U.S., 25 mass shootings have happened since 2006. The most recent tragedy, at Sandy Hook, was the seventh mass shooting in 2012 alone. More than 75 percent of the guns used in all these shootings were purchased legally, a point that in helped recently renew the debate on a federal assault weapon ban, although that proposal now appears to be dead in the water.

The map below, produced by Mother Jones as part of its series, shows the location and specific details of each incident. Visit the site to see a detailed timeline of these incidents and the shooters involved.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/04/05/the-mass-shootings-problem/feed/0mass_shooting_mapSource: Mother JonesThe United States of Firearms: America’s Love of the Gunhttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/#commentsSat, 15 Dec 2012 03:34:41 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=5205Continue reading The United States of Firearms: America’s Love of the Gun→]]>Regardless of where you stand on gun control, the fact remains that America is one gun-toting country. There are 89 guns for every 100 civilians, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. That amounts to roughly 270 million guns owned nationwide, far and away the highest gun ownership rate in the world. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. is home to anywhere between 35 and 50 percent of all civilian-owned guns on earth.
Created by Simon Rogers at the Guardian (click to explore interactively)

And while America certainly does not have the highest firearms-related homicide rate in the world (it ranks 28th), our rate is more than four times that of any other industrialized country (including all of Europe, Japan, Australia, Turkey and India): in 2011, there were well over 9,000 gun-related homicides (nearly 70 percent of all homicides committed), or roughly three per 100,000 population, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That’s about 20 times the average rate of all other developed nations, according to the Washington Post.

Max Fisher_The Washington Post (source: UNODC; using 2010 data)

In contrast, Great Britain has a gun ownership rate of about 6 guns for every 100 civilians. Last year it had 41 gun-related homicides, or .07 per 100,000 population. Meanwhile, Finland, where there are 45 guns per 100 civilians, had only 24 gun homicides in 2011, a rate of .45 per 100,000 population.

Simon Rogers_The Guardian

The infographic below, produced by Good Magazine and Column Five, further illustrates America’s deep and exceptional love affair with the gun.

Editor’s Note: The U.S. rate of gun ownership was previously stated incorrectly: there are 89 guns for every 100 civilians (NOT: 89 out of 100 civilians own a gun).

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/feed/82Screen-shot-2012-12-14-at-2.12.43-PMCreated by Simon Rogers at the Guardian (click to explore interactively)firearm-OECD-UN-data3_washpostMax Fisher_The Washington Post (data source: UNODC)Screen-shot-2012-12-14-at-2.14.17-PM_2Simon Rogers_The Guardianinfographic_good magThe Battleground States: Where It All Goes Downhttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/10/01/the-battleground-states-where-it-all-goes-down/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/10/01/the-battleground-states-where-it-all-goes-down/#commentsTue, 02 Oct 2012 02:31:09 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=3898Continue reading The Battleground States: Where It All Goes Down→]]>Because nearly every state in the nation has a winner-take-all presidential electoral system (except Nebraska and Maine), the outcome on election day in most states is fairly predictable. No Republican presidential candidate, for instance, has won California since 1988, and there’s no sign of that trend changing anytime soon. So it wouldn’t be the smartest move to put your money on Mitt Romney here.

Likewise, Texas hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976. So Barack Obama’s chances of winning over the Longhorn State this election? Pretty slim.

Of course, on the rare occasion there have been some monumental upsets. Take Indiana, which hadn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, but in 2008 picked Obama (albeit narrowly and ephemerally: the state is back to it’s solid red roots this year).

The majority of the presidential race is downright predictable.

So where’s the suspense? Where’s the action?

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election, so in most elections, the race comes down to the battleground states: those toss-ups that are divided pretty evenly between Republicans and Democrats and have lots of unpredictable independent voters. It’s these states that typically have been the wildcards in recent elections, the one’s with the power to literally “swing” the outcome of a presidential race, and the places you’ll very likely find the candidates in the weeks and months leading up to the election.

As in 2008, the biggest swing states this year (the one’s with the most electoral votes, that is, and a history of vacillating) are Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina. All of them chose Obama in 2008, and current polls show him retaining a slim lead in most. The individual outcomes, though, still remain very much up in the air.

There are a ton of good interactive electoral maps out there (so I’ll restrain myself from creating another one). I particularly like the Los Angeles Times interactive, which provides an electoral calculator, a clear breakdown of past election results, and an interface users to play with different swing state scenarios.

270ToWin, which I’ve referenced in past posts, also has a great set of maps and resources, including state-by-state historical voting patterns. The site includes an interesting electoral college prediction calculator based on current polling numbers.

Additionally, the BBC has a great interactive to learn more about battleground states, their populations, and the most compelling issues that might sway voters there.

So, then, what are the main factors that determine how a swing state might lean in a given election? There are many, of course, but among the most influential is the economy equation, A lot of voters evaluate the sitting president’s performance on current economic conditions (even if those trends had already taken shape prior to a president assuming power). Because the U.S. economy continues to be sluggish, and unemployment rates are particularly high in key swing states like Ohio, many of the on-the-fence voters who chose Obama in 2008 will likely be quite a bit harder to win over this time around.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/10/01/the-battleground-states-where-it-all-goes-down/feed/0California’s Prison Realignment Explainedhttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/17/califrornias-prison-realignment-explained/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/17/califrornias-prison-realignment-explained/#commentsFri, 17 Aug 2012 18:30:17 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=80Continue reading California’s Prison Realignment Explained→]]>Last October California began a dramatic overhaul of its severely overcrowded prison system. Assembly Bill 109 – known as realignment – had the objective of shedding more than 30,000 inmates from in-state prisons and significantly cutting the prison budget. At the time the law took effect, there were more than 143,000 inmates behind bars in California’s 33 prisons. That’s almost twice the system’s design capacity. Meanwhile, California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation received about $10 billion a year from the state’s thinning general fund – over 11 percent of last year’s entire spending plan, more than was spent on the University of California and California State University systems combined.

So what’s happened since last October?

Since realignment began, most “non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders” (as defined by the California’s Penal Code) have been sentenced to county jails or put in locally-run probation programs. The program shifts a huge amount of criminal justice responsibility and power from the state to the local level. Prior to last October, every county came up with it’s own individualized plan for how it would handle a potential increase in inmates and parolees. Each county then received an allotment of state funding based on its specific plan and the number of new inmates in projected receiving.

What’s the goal?

The state was mandated by a court order to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates — nearly the capacity of the Oakland Coliseum. Again, the new rule mainly applies to inmates convicted of non-violent crimes like drug sales and theft-related offenses.

What about low-level offenders who are already serving prison terms?

They stay where they are. Realignment only applies to parolees and inmates sentenced after October 1, 2011. So contrary to common misconception, non-violent inmates currently in prison do not get transferred to county jails. Additionally, low-level offenders released from prison or jail now get supervised by county-based probation programs rather than monitored by the state’s parole system. And non-serious parole violators generally no longer get sent back to prison: many will serve their terms in county jails. This is where much of the inmate reduction has occurred, because prior to realignment, roughly 47,000 inmates a year served terms of 90 days or less in the state’s prison system.

What’s the difference between jail and prison?

Jails in California are county-run facilities that traditionally house low-level inmates serving sentences of under a year, or for those awaiting criminal trial. Jails are under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff’s department. Every county in the state presides over its own jail system (with the exception of Alpine County, which doesn’t have any jails).

Prisons are state-run facilities administered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). They’re generally intended to house more serious and violent offenders whose sentences are generally over a year. However, in recent decades, an increasing number of low-level, non-violent offenders have been sentenced to relatively lengthy prison terms, and this added to the extent of prison overcrowding There are 33 state prison facilities currently operating in California.

What’s the point of realignment?

The realignment program is California’s response to three major mandates:

1) A state mandate to slash spending
California (as you may have heard) has long been in a serious budget crisis and needs to drastically cut spending. Proponents of realignment, including Governor Brown, contend that counties can manage low-level offenders far more cost efficiently than can the state. California can therefore potentially save a significant amount of money by funding counties at lower levels than what it would cost to house those same offenders in state prisons. State finance analyses estimate a savings of nearly $486 million.

2) A federal mandate to reduce overcrowding
In May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order for California to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates.In the 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions resulting from severe overcrowding were in violation of the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The decision was based largely on evidence of avoidable inmate deaths due to inadequate medical care as a result of overcrowding.

3) A societal mandate to reform a “broken” system
California’s prison system has long been rife with problems and inefficiencies. Along with severe overcrowding and outdated facilities, the system has one of the highest recidivism rates in the nation; as of 2010, more than 67% of those released returned to prison. Proponents of realignment assert that much-needed reform and innovation is more likely to happen on a county level, where local officials have greater flexibility to employ programs that reduce recidivism and increase public safety, and where inmates, upon release, will be closer to their homes and services.

Which counties have been most impacted?

Check out the interactive map below to get a sense of which counties have received the brunt. Parts of the Central Valley have felt the most impact.

It’s been less of an issue for most counties in the Bay Area, which have only experienced modest gains in their jail populations. And particularly in the case of Alameda and San Francisco counties, many low-level offenders were already under local supervision before realignment began.

It’s important to remember that each county decided its own process for dealing with realignment. So two neighboring counties might have very different approaches in how they handle the changes. Some counties have adopted reforms such as early release for good behavior, shorter sentences, and alternatives to incarceration (like electronic monitoring programs). Other counties, however, have taken a less nuanced approach, and have been placing new inmates in local jails for relatively long-term periods.

]]>
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/17/califrornias-prison-realignment-explained/feed/1Jail_legendShouldering the Burden: California’s New Jail Boom (interactive map)http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/16/shouldering-the-burden-californias-new-jail-boom-interactive-map/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/16/shouldering-the-burden-californias-new-jail-boom-interactive-map/#commentsFri, 17 Aug 2012 01:19:26 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=3347Continue reading Shouldering the Burden: California’s New Jail Boom (interactive map)→]]>California’s realignment process has resulted in many more new low-level offenders placed under county supervision rather than being put in the state prison system. Although the overall jail population has not changed significantly, many counties across the state have experienced a significant increase in their local sentenced inmate populations.

Click on each county below for average jail population rates of sentenced inmates between the third quarter of 2011 (before realignment began) and the first quarter of 2012.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/16/shouldering-the-burden-californias-new-jail-boom-interactive-map/feed/0Jail_legendGDP per Capita Around the Worldhttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/13/gdp-per-capita-all-around-the-world/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/13/gdp-per-capita-all-around-the-world/#commentsMon, 13 Aug 2012 16:30:28 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=3172Continue reading GDP per Capita Around the World→]]>Now that you can drop the concept of GDP per capita like the pros do, check out this interactive map that lists just about every country in the world (226) and their respective GDP per capita ranks in U.S. dollars. These figures are based on the most recent CIA data, with estimates derived from purchasing power parity (a complicated theory used to determine the relative value of currencies). It’s also worth noting that both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank compile their own GDP per capita data with slightly differing results.

The highest GDP per capita goes to Liechtenstein. Never heard of it? It’s really, really tiny, has a population of less than 40,000 and a GDP per capita of more than $141,000. In short, Liechtensteinians are living large.

At the bottom of the list is the Democratic Republic of Congo in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 71 million people on an average of $400 a year.

Map legend

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/13/gdp-per-capita-all-around-the-world/feed/0GDP Legend_take2Why Are Israelis So Much Wealthier Than Their Palestinian Neighbors?http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/10/why-are-palestinians-so-much-poorer-than-israelis-theres-a-bit-more-to-it-than-culture/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/10/why-are-palestinians-so-much-poorer-than-israelis-theres-a-bit-more-to-it-than-culture/#commentsSat, 11 Aug 2012 00:30:05 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=3184Continue reading Why Are Israelis So Much Wealthier Than Their Palestinian Neighbors?→]]>Mitt Romney was absolutely correct when noting, on the 2012 presidential campaign trail, that Israel’s GDP per capita is significantly higher than that in the Palestinian territories.

But he was actually way off on the specifics: in suggesting that Israelis produced roughly twice as much as do the Palestinians, he vastly understated the wealth disparity. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimated Israel’s per capita GDP at about 10 times (or 1000% more) that of the Palestinians.

In 2011 Israel had a per capita GDP of roughly $31,000, while in 2008 — the last year the CIA listed data for the Palestinians — the per capita GDP. of the West Bank and Gaza combined was about $3,000.

That’s a 1000% difference!

In suggesting that the economic disparity can be attributed to the “culture” of the two peoples, Romney made no reference to a handful of pretty significant factors that, it’s fair to say, have a tad bit of influence on economic conditions in both areas:

Source: Central Intelligence Agency

1. The West Bank, where the majority of Palestinians live (about 2.5 million of them), has been under tight Israeli military occupation and economic control since 1967, when Israel captured the region in war. According to the CIA: “Israeli closure policies continue to disrupt labor and trade flows, industrial capacity, and basic commerce, eroding the productive capacity” of the economy.

2. The Gaza Strip, home to roughly 1.7 million Palestinians, is a region mired in deep-seeded poverty. Why? According to the CIA : “Israeli-imposed border closures, which became more restrictive after the radical group Hamas seized control of the territory in June 2007, have resulted in high unemployment, elevated poverty rates, and the near collapse of the private sector that had relied on export markets.” The agency adds that “changes to Israeli restrictions on imports in 2010 resulted in a rebound in some economic activity, but regular exports from Gaza still are not permitted.”

3. U.S. foreign aid: In 2011, Israel received about $3 billion from the U.S.. The Palestinian Authority got $147 million. That’s less than half a percent of what Israel received. And, of course, more money flowing into a nation’s economy means more capital for investment. Which, in turn, means more production, yielding higher GDP per capita.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/08/10/why-are-palestinians-so-much-poorer-than-israelis-theres-a-bit-more-to-it-than-culture/feed/0israel_pol01Israel_Palestine_GDPSource: Central Intelligence AgencyWho Votes in California? (Hint: it’s not the majority)http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/27/3048/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/27/3048/#commentsSat, 28 Jul 2012 00:55:13 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=3048Continue reading Who Votes in California? (Hint: it’s not the majority)→]]>Click each county on the map below for stats on California’s eligible and registered voters, as well as a breakdown of political party affiliation (but keep in mind there’s a big difference between registered and “likely” voters). The darker the shade, the higher the percentage of registered voters.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, called voting “the basic right, without which all others are meaningless.”

But in California – where nearly 24 million adults are eligible to vote – the number of people who actually take advantage of this right is surprisingly small.

Consider these California voting stats (approximated):

24 million: People who are eligible to vote

17 million: People registered to vote (about 72% of those who are eligible)

6 million: “Likely voters” (those who regularly vote)

5.3 million: The number of votes cast in the June 2012 primary election

A Public Policy Institute of California survey also found that California’s “likely voters” are not representative of the state’s racial and economic diversity. About 65 percent of them are white (even though whites make up only 44 percent of the state’s adult population) and only 17 percent Latino (who make up about one-third of the state’s population). Likely voters are also generally older, more educated, more affluent, and far more likely to own a home than the average Californian. And more than 80 percent were born in the U.S.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/27/3048/feed/0The Cost of California’s Public Universitieshttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/18/the-cost-of-californias-public-universities/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/18/the-cost-of-californias-public-universities/#commentsThu, 19 Jul 2012 00:51:51 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=2849Continue reading The Cost of California’s Public Universities→]]>The price of knowledge at California’s public universities ain’t what it used to be.

About 600,000 college students attend one of the 32 California State University and University of California schools (UC San Francisco is the 33rd, but doesn’t have an undergraduate program). The state has, by far, the largest network of public four-year colleges in the country. And until fairly recently, going to school at a public school in California was a really good deal for in-state students.

But recent steep cuts in higher education funding have led to major spikes in the tuition tab. Just last year, California’s public universities enacted a tuition hike of 21 percent, the steepest increase of any state, according to the College Board.

The average in-state tuition and fees for a CSU school – at about $6,500 – is still relatively affordable compared to public universities in other states, but just ten years ago it was just about a third of the cost. Tuition increases in the UC system have followed suit; undergrads can now expect to shell out more than $13,000 a year. And of course, that’s before you even begin to consider books, supplies, and room and board, which more than doubles the cost. The result: fewer options for lower-income students and more loans and debt for graduates to pay off.

Click each marker for undergraduate cost and debt information. California State University’s 23 undergraduate campuses are blue. University of California’s nine campuses (excluding UCSF) are red.

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/07/18/the-cost-of-californias-public-universities/feed/0Interactive: Counting the Undocumented in California (and the rest of the country)http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/15/interactive-map-californias-unauthorized-immigrants-by-county/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/15/interactive-map-californias-unauthorized-immigrants-by-county/#commentsFri, 15 Jun 2012 22:04:23 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=2459Continue reading Interactive: Counting the Undocumented in California (and the rest of the country)→]]>

(Click on each state for population estimates of the undocumented immigrant community; source: Pew Hispanic Center)

Although the vast majority of immigrants in California came here legally, the state still has by far the largest undocumented immigrant population in the country, many of whom are young. In fact, it’s estimated that as many as 350,000 young undocumented immigrants living in California are eligible for deferred deportation and work authorization, as a result of the Obama administration’s recent policy shift, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

And while the rate of growth has slowed significantly over the past three decades, the population of undocumented immigrants in California is still far more than 2.5 million strong. – about 8 percent of the state’s total population, according to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California. As of 2008, undocumented immigrants made up more than 10 percent of the populations of Santa Clara, Monterey/San Benito, Imperial, and Napa Counties.

The majority come from Mexico, and the heaviest concentrations are based in urban and major agricultural regions.

Because there are no national or state level surveys that count undocumented foreign-born residents, the data are only indirect population estimates. PPIC used tax returns (filed with Independent Taxpayer Identification Numbers) and corroborated data with recent estimates from The Pew Hispanic Center and the Department of Homeland Security.

Click on each county below for the estimated number of undocumented immigrants throughout California (based on 2008 estimates). The darker the shade of red, the larger the number of undocumented residents in that region.

Unauthorized Immigrants in California and all other states (1980 – 2008)

]]>http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/15/interactive-map-californias-unauthorized-immigrants-by-county/feed/0legendimmigrant pop changeSource: Public Policy Institute of California via Passel and Woodward (1984); Warren (2011)Interactive Map: U.S. Congressional Representation by Statehttp://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/14/interactive-map-u-s-congressional-representaton-by-state/
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/14/interactive-map-u-s-congressional-representaton-by-state/#commentsFri, 15 Jun 2012 00:22:58 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=2432Click on any state to see the number of current seats it’s represented by in Congress (based on the 2010 Census population figures) and the change – if any – since 2000. The darker the shade of green, the greater the number of seats.

For much of the state’s history, the legislature has firmly controlled the once-a-decade redistricting process. New district lines are typically redrawn in a way that directly favors whichever party is in control.

Demographic techniques like splitting apart cities, carving up ethnic enclaves, and leaping across vast geographic swaths to bundle like-minded voters are common gerrymandering tools long used by pols to solidify power.

In fact, investigative news service ProPublica recently reported that California’s Democrats have for decades been extremely effective at carefully redrawing electoral maps to protect incumbent legislators in their party. Since 2000, no Democratic incumbent has lost a single Congressional election!

Trying to hand the power to the people

In an effort to reduce direct partisan influence in the redistricting process, California voters in 2008 approved Proposition 11, effectively stripping the legislature of their redistricting authority and assigning the role to a new independent group of citizens selected in a lottery process.

Called the Citizens Redistricting Commission, the 14-member group was tasked with redrawing the state’s political boundaries through a less partisan process less not dominated by any one political party. The group included five Democrats, five Republicans, and four other participants who didn’t belong to either major party.

The passage of Proposition 20 in 2010 further expanded the role of the commission to include California’s congressional districts. A prominent group of Democrats – including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – helped campaign against the proposition, spending roughly $7 million in a failed attempt to defeat it.

What other guidelines did the commission have to follow?

In accordance with the California Constitution, the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) was mandated to draw its district maps in accordance with the following criteria (in order of priority):

Equal population: this follows the “one person, one vote” principle in the U.S. Constitution.

Compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act: the law prohibits voting practices that discriminate against minorities, including redrawing district maps in such a way that deny voters the right to elect a candidate of their choice. Passed by Congress in 1965, the VRA was specifically aimed at curbing disenfranchisement among African American voters in southern states, where district lines had historically been redrawn to limit the political influence of those communities. For districts with a history of minority voter discrimination, any changes to district lines or voting practices must be reviewed by the federal government. In California, this applies to King, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba counties.

Contiguity: every part of a district has to remain attached in some way.

Keeping political subdivision, neighborhoods and “communities of interest” intact: a newly drawn district shouldn’t divide up clearly defined communities. Proposition 20 defined a community of interest as “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.”

Compactness: a district should be as geographically compact as possible.

Nesting: to the extent possible, each of the 40 State Senate districts should contain two or more of the 80 Assembly districts.

In drawing new district maps, the commission also couldn’t knowingly discriminate against or favor any particular party, incumbent or candidate. They also had to be drawn without regard to where an incumbent or candidate lived at the time.

Spicing things up

The rules have resulted in some interesting contests. For instance, Rep. Jerry McNerney who for years has represented District 11 on the outer edges of the East Bay, found himself running for re-election this year in a Central Valley district he didn’t even live in! McNerney actually picked up and moved to Stockton, the heart of the newly drawn ninth district.

And, as a direct result of redistricting, Rep. Howard Berman and Rep. Brad Sherman, who are both current Democratic members of Congress from Southern California (and formerly represented different districts), now find themselves facing off against each other in a bitter over one remaining district.

So how well did the new system work work?

Like everything in politics – depends who you ask. Many political observers praised the process, contending that the new independent system marked a dramatic improvement over the rife partisan influence of California’s past redistricting efforts.

But … not all was rosy. In ProPublica’s investigation of the process, it found that the commission was victim to political wrangling and questionable partisan influence. Operatives from both parties – but particularly the Democrats – went to great lengths to influence how the group drew its maps. Among the beneficiaries, according to the report, was Rep. Jerry McNerney. His reelection bid was initially expected to be threatened by the redistricting process. But instead, with the help of a campaign run by a front group, the new maps placed McNerney in a significantly safer district than had initially been anticipated.

In its investigation, ProPublica wrote:

“The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.”